Latest Articles Delivered To You:

How To be Genuine

WHAT IS GENUINE? WHAT IS FAKE? WHAT ACTIONS ARE GENUINE ACTIONS? HOW DOES THIS EFFECT US? WHAT PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES ARISE FROM THIS? WHAT CONSTITUTES MUTUAL BENEFIT IN PICKUP?

A very important topic.

Try to bear with me, chunks practical and tactical materials ARE buried within..

-------

In my experience, if I ask a girl what sort of way she feels a guy should go about picking her up, she'll often reply with something to the effect of:

"Well.. He should come and say 'Hi'. Then he should just be himself.. He should be confident.. Introduce himself.. Maybe have a sense of humour.. Talk to me a bit so that we can get to know eachother.. And ask me if I'll go somewhere nice with him.. Oh yeah, also I like it if he'll just give me his number, just in case, you know.."

This way, she can screen him on looks, and proceed to make a rational decision on her terms.

It would be uncommon to hear a girl say, "I want a guy who will dupe me into a conversation with a chick-bait opener, tease me until I almost lose my mind, weave back and forth with stories that make me go crazy, spin me around and trick me into kissing him with my eyes closed, tell me cute things about himself so I'll go ga-ga for him, and make fake pre-suppositions to be alone with him so he can caveman me."

Nor would she likely say "I want a guy to hypnotize me with neuro-linguistic-programming."

Nor would she likely say "I want a guy who will ignore me and blast me off my pedastal by only talking to my friends, so that I'll re-validate myself by sleeping with him."

Of course, these last three work consistently on women of exceptional beauty, and the first one doesn't (again, CONSISTENTLY).

I draw this conclusion based on experience. My first 8 months in the game, I only had a book called "10 Secrets for Success with Beautiful Women" by a woman named Ursula Lidstrom.

She advocated the sort of approach that most women would want, and claimed her expertise as exceptional because she is a woman offering "inside info".

Her system was to be yourself, confident, and genuine. Also, to demonstrate alpha status through good bodylanguage and being well dressed. After hundreds of approaches, I got this down pat.

I did at least 5 approaches a day (though usually more), just being myself, confident, and getting to know girls in a way that was very cool and genuine - all as Ursula Lidstrom suggested. Read the book probably 10-15 times. (sidenote: EXCELLENT info on bodylanguage and GWM-style phase shifting can be found in this book, if you screen the rest).

Unfortunately, for those eight months I did not have sex even ONCE. I am not good looking, and could have had sex with HB7s, but that did/does not interest me. I was entirely celibate those eight months. I made many non-sexual friendships with girls, who still to this day social-proof me on campus.

But whenever I'd try to escalate, they'd react with "You're a really great guy. I'm just not looking for someone right now. You're really confident, you'll find someone."

Bear in mind though also, that I am not goodlooking. This probably could have worked for guys who could convey higher value via their looks. People DO hookup.

Also note that in general, YES you CAN pickup a girl within around 1 look-point difference of you, if you use the method that girls want. So if you're a 7 yourself, you can occasionally pickup 6s, 7s, and SOMETIMES 8s using this method. Even higher, but that's a more rare exception.

The reason being, that being confident and genuine IS NOT THAT UNCOMMON, and *unless* the girl doesn't have many genuine people in her life, it doesn't CONVEY HIGHER VALUE.

I have MANY genuinely confident people in my life, and while pleasant it is not a big deal to me. Girls are no different.

Genuine and confident people are EVERYWHERE. There is little correlation between these traits, and an exceptionally drop dead gorgeous woman being attracted to a mediocre looking guy.

The ONLY way that you can convey HIGHER value, by using this method, is if you have a RARE connection with the girl. This does happen, though it cannot be called a consistent pickup method, since it relies on external factors (ie: that you actually have a similar world view, or something similar, etc etc).

This is FAST-Seduction, which discusses how to be a PLAYER. If you want to read about spirituality, I highly recommend that. I've studied buddhism and volumes of spiritual writings, as well as all of Western philosophy - but not on THIS forum. Still, strong inner-peace leads to strong inner-game, and its beneficial.

Health, wealth, relationships -> go to the gym, eat right, find work you love, read important literature, surround yourself with people you love. ALL IMPORTANT to feeling good about yourself, which is important to pickup in ways that cannot even be adaquetely described through this limited cyber-medium.

But yet, even HAVING those things, will you be a *PLAYER*? I know MANY people who have reached this level of enlightenment who are not.

At the time that I was focusing on being genuine and building rapport, I was very much “emotionally whole”. I had everything going well for me in my life, and I was a genuinely happy person. I had goodwill towards everyone around me, and projected a positive vibe. This was great, but did not result in success with any exceptionally beautiful women.

Anyway, that was MY EXPERIENCE after eight long months of field-testing this way of doing things. It's just the experience of ONE GUY, so take it for what its worth.

------

SO, WHAT DO WOMEN WANT?

I recall having a convo with
Toecutter about his friend who would walk up to women, and tell them that he was rich and wanted to marry them.

He would weave the story, work it, and sleep with them that night. Then he'd blow them off the next day, leaving them heartbroken.

Now my first reaction to this was to be appalled.

I questioned my respect for
Toecutter , and generally wondered what he could possibly be thinking. How could he justify this sort of thing?

He said that I was living in an AFC mindset, and that women LOVED "to have their hopes and dreams shattered by scoundrels like Han Solo" and such, and that it was something that they actually WANTED.

He suggested that I read NANCY FRIDAY "My Secret Garden", to read about women's rape fantasies, and how repressive society has generated a common female fantasy for badboys who will break down their socially-taught resistance, and treat them like the "dirty" girls that deep down they know themselves to be.

From reading the book, I interpreted it as saying that the guy tricking/forcing the girl into sex, and leaving her was the girl's way of CONFIRMING that he was the kind of guy that she wants. (sort of to say that the jerk/badboy/untamable behaviour was some sort of CERTIFICATION that the girl has been fertalized by an alpha-seed, or something bizarre to that effect).

Very weird, and disturbing. I did NOT like reading this, nor do I necessarily like it now.

Basically, I interpreted that girls like DRAMA of ANY kind. They want INTENSE emotional drama. As Alphahot mentioned in a post a few threads below this one, they gravitate towards sources of extreme emotions. Scoundrels who use them and thus give them drama. And they gravitate towards it.

Of course, I was skeptical, and even after reading Nancy Friday I still maintained the view that these fantasies were anomolies, and that most women did not want this sort of thing.

Eddy also read this book, and shared my opinion. Be both generally hated it, and I recall Eddy throwing the book across the room several times.

Other PUAs who visit us comment on how scuffed up the book is, as Eddy has thrown it literally on almost every occassion he's read it, screaming "that could be my own mom!!! that could be my own mooooommmmmm!!!! ARGHHHHHH!!!"

-----

FIELD TESTING NANCY FRIDAY:

In California, I talked to Craig from the archives. He talked about Rick H, and how Rick would talk about women being adaptable.

"Women are adaptable.. whatever frame you set, they'll adapt to.. if you set a frame of provider candidate, they'll adopt a screen frame.. if you set a frame of them being screened for dirty slutty lesbian sex, they'll turn into sluts"

Coming from Rick H, I couldn't downplay this, and decided to explore it more. Particularly after the
Toecutter /NancyFriday stuff seemed to gel with this.

From this I spawned the idea for JERK ROUTINES, where I would INTENTIONALLY convey that I like to use and abuse women, right from the start of the pickup. The frame would be set.

I set to the task of field testing it, which I did non-stop for six straight weeks before posting something potentially misleading.

First,

I would do things like tell women to close their eyes, and then kiss them. Tell them that I love them within seconds of meeting, even though this is clearly a way to get into their pants. I would even tell subtle stories about how I am currently planning to use women to get to all their friends.

Then,

I adopted the SWINGCAT STYLE QUALIFYING. "Are you adventurous? Cause if you're not adventurous, I can't hang with you."

Up until the Nancy Friday test, I would get them to tell adventurous stories, like extreme sports or travelling or something.

But then I REALIZED the TRUE use in the Swingcat adventurous qualifying.

"Adventurous" was to be a EUPHIMISM for “SLUTTY”.

I stopped getting them to tell me stories about adventures, and instead would just pause, and wait for them to give me the REAL DIRT.

Around 90% of women would start telling me about how they love to suck dick and take it on the face. How they dream about getting gang-raped and fucked by strange men and hot guys from clubs.

LITERALLY, I would sit there PRETENDING like I thought this was just great. Making myself out to be NON-JUDGEMENTAL, and even ENCOURAGING. But really, inside, I was thinking "shit I dunno if I can stomach this.." I was still in an AFC mindset. I thought that this was just a series of strange coincidences, and that these girls couldn't represent the majority.

I was forced to RE-ASSESS my VALUE SYSTEM for making judgements on what constituted a nice-girl, since clearly ALL girls had a "slut" side to them.

------

SIDENOTE:

This was similar to my experience when I first tested routines based on spells and the unknown. I'd always thought that most girls didn't believe in psychics and ESP, until I began making it sound like *I* did, and that I would not JUDGE them on it. I found out that most girls DID believe in ESP, and that those few who didn't could be convinced otherwise with even the most simplistic mentalist illusion.

------

So much like the non-judgemental frame that use with the ESP stuff, I'd appear NON-JUDGEMENTAL for their "slutty" desires.

---

THE “NEW” TD:

It was difficult for me, because I've always been extremely conservative/rightwing/republican.

Initially, this was hard for me to stomach. I felt very incongruent for the first week or two.

I began PROJECTING that I was a SCOUNDREL JERK who would intentionally and openly USE and ABUSE of women. I projected "TD is a jerk, who MAKES NO EXCUSES for it.. Like a rockstar, he fucks his groupies, and sends them home happy that they could get even that".

It's funny, because this isn't the case - I didn’t feel that way. But in the past, projecting the CONSERVATIVE REAL ME wasn't eliciting any SEXUAL reaction from women.

I decided that IF I CONTINUED DOING WHAT I HAD ALWAYS DONE, I'D CONTINUE TO GET THE RESULTS THAT I'D ALWAYS GOTTEN. (this isn't my catchphrase.. maybe Tony Robbins, I dunno.. Mys uses it all the time).

I know that CLOUD9 also has had inner-conflicts with this. For me, one of top students in my country, its been difficult to DEGENERATE my speaking manneurisms to a more colloquial level.. "like, you know, totally, like, cool..." But unfortunately, my "Queens-talk" (as everyone used to describe my articulate speaking manneurisms) wasn't eliciting strong sexual responses from the sexy girls that I was interested in. They wanted to validate themselves with me, sure. But what they wanted to validate was that they could be as sophisticated as me. IOW, that they're smart, and that they're ladies.

So go ahead and bust on me for being incongruent and not real to myself or something like that. But at the end of the day my girlfriend is an HB10... aside also from the HB8 and HB8.5 that I am also seeing, all of who are really cool girls and who I am genuine with now, AFTER having gotten with them - NOT BEFORE.

WOMEN'S REACTIONS:

Now, when I walk into a room on campus, women start giggling and checking me out. They touch me, shit test me immediately to see if I really AM what I project, and show massive physical IOIs (face me, lean in, perk up their breasts, lick their lips, big eyes, etc etc etc).

I do NOTHING other than just walk into the room, and convey the attitude that's discussed in this post.

"I will fuck you the second you let your guard down, because I am a badboy and that's just me" is the image that I convey, and women respond instantly.

Of course, MOST women will be initially ATTRACTED, but still won't sleep with me from that feeling alone. They can’t quite justify their desire, because of social-conditioning.

So the SOLUTION: Show that they have a CHANCE to tame you, and that you have a sensitive inside somewhere deep down.. -> GET RAPPORT.

Toecutter explained that women WILLFULLY IGNORE the truth, in order to preserve the feelings that they are deriving from the massive drama that you provide.

This is also from MANIAC_HIGH, so if you disagree then maybe check out the new maniac plan for more detailed explication.

Anyway,
Toecutter states that the girls who were "duped" by the marriage trick were in fact WELL-AWARE that it was clearly bullshit, but that they WANTED to go along with it, so that they could experience the ADVENTURE.

The same goes for
Mystery 's girlfriend of 5 years, who STILL BELIEVES that he genuinely has MAGIC POWER, including an ability to levitate himself from the ground, move objects with his mind, and read thoughts telepathically.

Of course, having been with him for 5 years, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that she wouldn't have figured out how he does his illusions. Despite his sharp skills, many illusions I figured out after hanging with him for just a month. He may have done it over 300 times before I figured it out, but EVENTUALLY I DID figure it out.

This girl is with him FIVE YEARS and CHOOSES TO BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD IS NOT MUNDANE. There is NO WAY she wouldn't have caught the illusion at least ONE TIME in FIVE YEARS.

She WILLFULLY DECEIVES HERSELF to believe what she wants, because she likes the DRAMA and ADVENTURE.

Same goes with
Mystery 's other long term girlfriends, who KNOW, read *KNOW*, that he is constantly with other women.

Why does have condoms all over his room? hmmmmmm... Could he really go months without sex while he travels??? hmmmmm.... What does it mean when girls call him non-stop while they're in bed together??? hmmmmm... He walks into the club and girls SWARM him... hmmmmmm.. He picked her up and fucked her first night they met... hmmmm....

But still they CHOOSE to IGNORE it, because he provides the drama that they want.

And as a BONUS, they get to go home and spend time convincing their parents and friends how great
Mystery is, which gives them even MORE drama.

Likewise, in my small community, I go pickup girls. They go back to their roomates, who inevitably on some occassions will have been picked up by me a month earlier. But does that REPEL them from me, like our LOGICAL AFC-INDOCTRINATED brains would have so long expected? NOPE. It just gives them MORE DRAMA and sucks them in even deeper.

This was even the case when they’ve heard that I used the SAME OPENERS and ROUTINES. Strange, huh? You’d think that it would break their interest. But not the case. Why not? Could it be that finding out that I am a womanizing-“jerk” was congruent with what I projected during the pickup?

------

SOME CONCLUSIONS - A RE-ASSESSMENT OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A WOMAN'S VALUE:

So that's it. I get it now. Women aren't like what I thought. Or rather, at least when it comes to SEX.

The girls that I thought were 'nice' have revealed that they've been fucked by anonymous guys, loved it, and want it again.

The girls that I thought were LOYAL to their boyfriends have called them from my bed, GUILT-FREE, lying about where they were last night like it was NOTHING.

I've found that girls break guys into categories of SEDUCERS and EMOTIONAL SUPPORTERS, and that if I don't want my girl to cheat on me, she's gonna have to get her drama from ME, and not from some asshole player.

So if that is the case then, what kind of girl do I look for when I'm ready to have children or get married?

---

IN LIGHT OF THIS KNOWLEDGE, WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD WOMAN???

I am still deciding on this, and really I have only limited insights.

But for me, at this time, I use NON-AFC-CULTURE based value judgements.

I look at the kind of connection that I have with her, and the way that we get along AFTER we've "hooked-up".

Because, like
Mystery , I agree that only AFTER you hookup do you start communicating GENUINELY.

The FIRST genuine conversation happens in bed together, AFTER THE GAME IS OVER, and you find out whether or not this was just a validation-game, or if its an emotional connection.

And do *I* necessarily want the games? Nope.

I remember when I first did clubs, and I'd tease a high calibre HB. Say a 9 or 10. And she'd touch me, and say that she liked me. But as soon as I'd RECIPROCATE that, she'd LOSE INTEREST. It was a SHIT TEST, NOT genuine communication. Or was it? Was it genuinely communicating that she wanted to see if I was really the jerk she wanted me to be, and that she had to test me to find out?

Do shit tests constitute genuine communication? The girl is tricking you, to find your true nature. But then, if you pass, you genuinely will hookup with her. So is the girl genuine, or not? Not necessarily an easy question to answer.

YES, I have MANY genuine emotional connections with girls. My sister, her friends, my pivots, my relatives, my teachers. The girls that I am ALREADY with - my 3 MLTRS.

But NOT with girls that I am in the MIDST of picking up, because it is still *GAME-ON*.

Afterwards, once I have PROVEN myself to be the kind of man that she wants, I can get to know her on a more personal and genuine level. Until then, it is about SEXUAL ATTRACTION, which is NOT necessarily related to genuine communication. It CAN be, but it isn’t necessarily the case.

And why? Because there are several types of attraction, and while we may make socially based value judgements on which are more legitimate, the fact remains that they EXIST.

And of course, if genuine communication in the TRADITIONAL SENSE was the BASIS of ATTRACTION, then I suppose I’d probably be hooked up with the very fat and ugly girl from my history class, with whom I had a great conversation with last fall.

But then, the attractive girls I bed will most often BACKWARDS RATIONALIZE whatever nice things she finds out about me, and probably decide that THOSE things were CLEARLY what allowed her to be seduced by me. Of course that’s all after the fact. Contingencies.

This is how the game is played bros, at least in my personal opinion. Just the opinion of a new PUA, trying to make sense of all of this. Some of it is probably dead-on, and some of its probably inaccurate. Take it for what its worth.

---

WHAT *IS* GENUINE?

So if people play these games, what constitutes genuine?

What *is* genuine? If I were to be TRULY genuine with what *I* wanted to talk to girls about, I'd discuss logic and other esoteric philosophical issues. I’d discuss cars, and mechanics, and sports, and wars, and taking extreme risks and my criminal youth. I'd discuss how I'm right-wing and how I believe in certain repressive traditional values. I'd discuss John Rawls vs. Robert Nozick.. I'd discuss Heideger and Nietzche and Sartre, and subjective morality in a world without dogmatic value sources. I’d discuss Kripke and causal theory. I’d discuss flaws in symbolic notation. This stuff FASCINATES me.

I don't LIKE talking about social dynamics and feelings. It BORES me. *Most* things that *most* girls like to talk about are of NO INTEREST to me.

I DO NOT ENJOY running JUGGLER's rapport routines like "I really like pizza" and "this is what my own palm says about me" and “what would your life be rated if it was a movie?”, and making those kind of self-revealing statements. Nor would I like them any better had I invented them.

Or rather, I LIKE running them, for the purpose of PICKING UP. But I don’t run them for the SOLE SAKE of running them.

I will USE this stuff, but I don't LIKE it anymore than ANY OTHER stuff that I use. NONE of it is the “REAL ME” in the TRADITIONAL SENSE, so both MM and Juggler method are EQUAL in my mind.

I AM NOT stating that they don't work, or that Juggler's method isn't GREAT. Juggler-method WORKS - its GREAT.

But I *AM* stating that it is NO MORE GENUINE for me to PRETEND that I am enjoying talking about real genuine feelings in a Juggler-style that I really don't care to talk about, than it is for me to run the routines that I do most of the time now.

Either way, I'm FAKING SOMETHING. As are MOST sensitive new aged guys who will talk about this sappy crap, in the subconscious hope that it will gain attention from women.

Picking up by talking about real stuff that I feel, but DO NOT want to be talking about, is of no greater value to me than telling stories that I read from the internet. I’m still being ungenuine, in a SENSE, because my motivations extend BEYOND the expression itself.

Again, this is NO CRITICISM OF JUGGLER. His stuff ROCKS. My sole statement though is that it is NO MORE OR LESS GENUINE for me to run one pickup style, or another. They are all equal in that respect.

So what if I just talked about things I *AM* interested in talking about. The esoteric technical stuff. Well if I talk about these things girls will leave. They'll either argue, get bored, or flat walk away. They won't be interested, and they'll anchour feelings of boredom to me. I've TESTED this.

Why? Basic supply and demand. There are many genuine and confident people out there, and some give them better emotions than others. So I “set the bait” with the stuff that they’ll react to sexually. Of course you could cry ‘supplication!’, but then really we all supplicate ourselves in one way or another. The trapper supplicates by laying bait, but then he reaps the rewards later. Putting in work to get a result is not supplication.

And let’s say that being “myself” DID find me that ONE special girl.. I STILL wouldn't care, because I'm not INTERESTED in that kind of relationship in my early twenties anyway.

SO:

Is REFUSING to play games genuine?

If that's the case, then WHY have I SO RARELY had a girl angry or upset with me?

I mean, even after NUMEROUS relationships, have I had less problems than my average AFC friend with just a handful.

Many people probably QUESTION why I would pawn off 2 HB7s to pickup a HB9 or 10. Rightly so. But what they don't realize from behind their remote computer screens is that so long as you ACTIONS ARE CONGRUENT TO YOUR BADBOY FRAME, girls will EXPECT this behaviour, and NEVER be surprised when it happens. It's part of who you are, and they're SMART enough to know its coming.

Even with the bit of rapport that they NEED to justify their embarkment on your adventure, they still KNOW what is coming, and ACCEPT IT.

I'll have girls that I never called back, or pawned off for hotter girls, ALWAYS coming over to chat me and catch up. They're never upset. Always very happy to see me again.

In my opinion, there is a clear cut reason -> While my sexual persona may not be as congruent with my real personality as I'd like, my *ACTIONS* are CONGRUENT with what I *PROJECT*.

Since the girls I associate with KNOW and EXPECT that its going to be a short-lived ADVENTURE (given that I've made it fully obvious from the start), they NEVER get genuinely upset when it ends. Sure, they may pout briefly, but then they're off to the NEXT STIMULUS - be it the next socially-proofed jerk, or dancing, or drinks.

On the other hand, back when I used to be the LOYAL-AFC, when I'd dump the few girls I got they'd get VERY UPSET.

Which makes me think: Is it more genuine to build connections where you project that you are a more quiet one-girl type, when that is not you (even if you state polyamory, you still come-off that way). Or is it more genuine to be a jerk up front, and allow the chick to FREELY CHOOSE to go along for the short-adventure or not.

I guess we have to come to our own answers, and find our own subjective value systems. That's life. I don't judge. Call it aggrandized self-rationalization, but this is just the way that I make sense of the world that I've been thrown into, given my life experiences and how I've assimilated them.

The interactions with the women in my life ARE genuine, but during the initial phases of our relationship - the period where the FRAME is BARGAINED for and ESTABLISHED - I strive to convey that there are only CERTAIN parameters that I am comfortable with.

And making it obvious that I am only a short-lived adventure for them, through the jerk-way that I present myself, is the way that I go about doing it. Once the pact is made (sex), I'm comfortable to be fully myself. Discuss what I want, etc etc.. And the girls are ALWAYS happy to discuss stuff that is important to me AFTER we've had sex, because she's made that investment in me, and NOW FINALLY wants to know more about who I am. I fully believe that as a sexual-partner-candidate, you are NOTHING to a girl before you've had sex.

Or rather, you may be a friend. But that entitles you to nothing sexually. Nor should it.

--

BECOMING CONGRUENT:

When taking a job-interview, you’ll present yourself in a particular way. During a family gathering, it may be another way. And with your friends, it may be another way.

Everyone has different SIDES to their personality, and each judges when it is APPROPRIATE to exhibit a particular side.

Why not “just be yourself” at ALL times? Because EACH of these sides ARE the “real you”, just different aspects.

Acting the SAME in ALL situations is INCONSIDERATE to the people around you. If you horse around at a job interview, you show lack of respect for the interviewer’s experience. If you act overly sophisticated with your friends, you show lack of respect for the bond that you have with them, and the clowning-around that goes along with it.

And as with the boss at the job interview, you hope to eventually get to know your girl on a more “genuine” level, when the time is APPROPRIATE.

When INITIALLY PICKING UP A GIRL, showing the side of yourself that ELICITS SEXUAL REACTION is MOST APPROPRIATE, because you are not putting the girl in a position where she has to snub you based on sexual indifference to your approach. You don’t like it that most girls like to party? TO BAD. Don’t post about it on the PLAYER board.

Being unsexual during pickup can be UNAPPROPRIATE.

The girls that I pickup CLEARLY KNOW that I am someone who is TOYING with them, that it gives them drama that they like, and that our relationship will likely be short-lived. It is OBVIOUS, because at this point I am THAT GOOD.

Women are no more in the dark about my nature than men are about women with fake breasts. They KNOW what’s up, but they DON’T CARE.

And REALLY, these had been my intentions ALL ALONG. I am young, want to PARTY, and am not interested in actively seeking anything beyond a sexual connection at this point. Should it happen - GREAT. But I’m not SEEKING it. So why did I try to gain sexually via rapport and connections in the past? Solely for PRAGMATIC reasons. I thought that it would WORK.

So was I really congruent before? NO. I was just CONFORMING, and hadn’t the NERVE to show my intentions.

Also, I didn’t REALIZE that my intentions WERE NOT EVIL. Women APPRECIATE these kinds of guys, and you BENEFIT when you openly demonstrate that you are that guy - making no excuses for it.

While AT FIRST I felt INCONGRUENT, I later realized that in fact I HAD BECOME congruent.

I began PROJECTING the sort of image that was congruent with my INTENTIONS, and girls were reacting better, and never showing unpleasant surprises as in they had in the past.

My act of pre-planning and studying lines and tactics to project my badboy image IS CONGRUENT with who I am, because who I am is someone whose intentions are to interact with women in this way.

They enjoy it. I enjoy it.

They benefit. I benefit. We MUTUALLY benefit.

I am now congruent. I feel good for it.

If you want to judge it, go ahead. Just don’t claim that your philosophy has any superiority over any other subjective value-judgement, because it is just that. A subjective value judgement.

--

CONCLUSION:

So there you have it. Many chicks dig jerk-asshole types. Who ever said that the community never makes new discoveries anyway? hmmmmm....

And what is genuine? What is truth? Those questions are to be pondered over a lifetime, and they are part of what makes the human experience dynamic.

But if I can draw one solid conclusion, its that claiming absolute knowledge of such questions is self-indulgent. And in the opinion of this lowly-PUA, its not genuine.

Just checking in here ... ran a search to see what people are saying about my ideas. The things you have quoted me on is not the sort of advice I would have put out onto this public forum with all sorts of disfunctional whackos reading it. On the other hand, it is nice that you are breaking out of a "square" view of sexuality.

The reason I jump in here and post is because I know that people do things just because I said it was a good thing to do. Do not read the wrong things into what TD has said of my advice. Not unless you are sexually hip. Like when you can watch 2 men kissing in a film without turning away. When you are gentle and like women. When you can do all of the sexual role playing with a smile and affection for the girl. Most of you reading this are not there, so dont even bother. Nevertheless I will expand a little.

TD wrote:
> I recall having a convo with
Toecutter about his friend who would walk up to women, and tell them that he was rich and wanted to marry them.
>
> He would weave the story, work it, and sleep with them that night. Then he'd blow them off the next day, leaving them heartbroken.
>
> Now my first reaction to this was to be appalled.
>
> I questioned my respect for
Toecutter , and generally wondered what he could possibly be thinking. How could he justify this sort of thing?
>
>He said that I was living in an AFC mindset, and that women LOVED "to have their hopes and dreams shattered by scoundrels like Han Solo" and such, and that it was something that they actually WANTED.

OK, this guy we are talking about that proposes to chicks is a good friend, and a truely excellent PUA. Not in the walk-in-with-square-shoulders-on-a-mission kind, but rather he just surrounds himself in women. He specialises in the waitresses from the hottest venues in town, as well as the elite looking girls within those venues. TD, if you had met him you would understand. BL met him, but unfortunately did not hear him recount stories of how he proposed to chicks. The stories are halarious. He is a good story teller.

The guy IS a scoundrel. That is his style. He will blatently hit on a waitress in a playful way. Ask them outright if they have a boyfriend while they are taking his order. Run cheeky and blatent boyfriend destroyers on them (not as covert hypnosis, but as comedy). Ask them if they don't think they need more of a James Bond type in their life [blatent and obvious self point and cheeky grin]. They laugh, batter their eyelids and try to tell him they are taken, and it is all fun. All a game. This is what one might call flirting. He is a good flirt. The girls love it.

The marry me thing crosses over into sexual fantasy, however. It is fantasy role play. I knew at the time (when I explained it to you) you weren't hip to it (sexual fantasy role play). You seemed to me to have a square madonna/whore view of sexuality. If you can get hip to sexual fantasy role play, you will become a good PUA. You will have to change a fair bit of your persona to make it congruent, but there perhaps is the key. It signals to the girls that you are good in bed. Simple as that. And play games in the bedroom. And are fun. And are confident. In your-self. In your sexuality. And don't take yourself too seriously. And are able to joke and "just pretend" in the way children do so easily.

TD wrote:
>He suggested that I read NANCY FRIDAY "My Secret Garden", to read about women's rape fantasies, and how repressive society has generated a common female fantasy for badboys who will break down their socially-taught resistance, and treat them like the "dirty" girls that deep down they know themselves to be.

Don't get me wrong. Those fantasies are not violent rape fantasies. They are fantasies about being a 16th century dutch maid in a windmill in old Amsterdam and being taken from behind while she scrubs the floor by her master for example (I think I just made that up). It is about taking away all the heavy consequences from sex. Like all the risks; emotional, societial, physical risks that are so overwhealming that if a girl considers it too long she will never fuck anyone. In many of the fantasies she imagines herself a different person so that even in the fantasy she does not have to take responsibility for why she would be doing this.

Womens fantasy novels are full of fortune hunters (tricking the lead female out of her knickers and her fortune in a lavish ploy), pirates and others of that type. It is not that girls deep down are "dirty girls" (the word itself holds large values judgements about how you view sex and women). You know that some girls like to get drunk to absolve themselves of the responsibility for their actions. And similarly that LMR is often a plea to have you take away her free will. Not using physical strength (or at least not in anything more than a play-acting way). This is a subtle thing, and you have to be extremely hip and cool to understand exactly what I mean here.

TD wrote:
> From reading the book, I interpreted it as saying that the guy tricking/forcing the girl into sex, and leaving her was the girl's way of CONFIRMING that he was the kind of guy that she wants. (sort of to say that the jerk/badboy/untamable behaviour was some sort of CERTIFICATION that the girl has been fertalized by an alpha-seed, or something bizarre to that effect).

No you have misinterpreted what I meant. It is not some test they put you into because they are "choosing" or "testing" or wanting to give you some sort of "certification", I am talking about being the real deal where you choose her for an evening of pleasure. Being hip and playful and understanding that right now in this given moment she NEEDS you to tell her that she has no choice so that it makes it all okay for her to take the next step towards doing what she will soon be doing because she has no choice. She is swept away in the moment and the situation. We need to be very careful here though. The resistance needs to be nominal and tokinal. Not real resistance. DO NOT READ ME IN THE WRONG WAY. THIS IS ROLE-PLAY, NOT RAPE. It is like when you tie your girl-friends wrists and ankles to the bed in consentual sex and get together a "safe word" to have you let her out if she ever becomes uncomfortable. Other than the safe word she can scream "No", "Don't", "Stop", and it is just her getting into the scenario in her mind. It is consentual. It is role play. Only in a PU the rules of engagement have not been made explicit like with your girl-friend. This COULD actually be the real deal for her, and she COULD be acutally living out her fantasy. On the other hand the guy might just be play-acting like her ex. The thrill of not knowing but going ahead anyway makes it twice as good for her. You have to be extremely sensitive to find rules of egagement without them being articulated (thus ruining the fantasy) that both you and her are comfortable with. It is not for squares. You have to be hip to it before you can understand it and live it. In other words, if you are not hip to it and have a square meat-and-potatoes view of sex, dont go near this because you will fuck it up, get yourself into serious trouble and leave emotional scars both on you and an innocent girl.

TD wrote:
> Of course, I was skeptical, and even after reading Nancy Friday I still maintained the view that these fantasies were anomolies, and that most women did not want this sort of thing.

These are not anomolies. This is the fantasy world of women. Buy one of those Harlequin romance novels and read it. The novel is one long womens fantasy. There is nothing wrong with sex. Women like it in that dream-like way of the novels. Not the hard focus gritty reality way of mens porn films.

TD wrote:
> I would do things like tell women to close their eyes, and then kiss them. Tell them that I love them within seconds of meeting, even though this is clearly a way to get into their pants.

This needs to be done in a cheeky way. Not for a guy who takes himself seriously. Comedy.

> I would even tell subtle stories about how I am currently planning to use women to get to all their friends.

Don't like it. It comes off as machiavalian and conniving (is that how you spell it?).

Yes, I can see that this would be difficult for you. It would require you relaxing. Walking, talking and holding yourself with less excitability and tension (in your neck, shoulders, etc.). Just unwinding and speaking slower. Listening better because you are comfortable in your skin (and once you have listened you are still free to judge or say exactly what your think without fears about "what she'll think of me", because you are cool and bad and she is a pretty but stupid little girl). And then connecting on a relaxed, playful and non-judgemental level with the kinky little freak that she has inside. And leading that little freak without giving her the yes/no choice at any stage. This is more complex than buying some accesories like a racecar jacket. It would be great to see you pulling this off, I am sure with some effort you will do well.

> I began PROJECTING that I was a SCOUNDREL JERK who would intentionally and openly USE and ABUSE of women. I projected "TD is a jerk, who MAKES NO EXCUSES for it.. Like a rockstar, he fucks his groupies, and sends them home happy that they could get even that".

OK this is good.

>
Toecutter explained that women WILLFULLY IGNORE the truth, in order to preserve the feelings that they are deriving from the massive drama that you provide.

Not just women, we all do it. We all have our rose coloured glasses. But you have summed this up very elequently so I will leave it there, I have things to do.

On 4/24/03 5:08:00 AM, TeaDrinkingGuy wrote:
>It took me a long time to read
>this thread, and I really had
>to think about how this fit
>into/affected my view, which
>is rather feminist (and
>probably too liberal for TD
>;)..
>

How many girls did you approach this week? Sounds like you are sprouting philisophical bullshit to me. You think "feminist leanings" will get you laid because you are ingratiating yourself to women? Sorry buddy, it wont. Here is a feminist routine for you:

"I remember in the early 90's there was this article about how more women were asking men to marry them ... I found it interesting ... I mean can you imagine that ... if it was the women who were asking men to marry them as a rule. I mean it would trickle down all the way to here (the bar that we are in). I mean if it were the women who were asking the men, then the whole thing would be turned up-side-down. And the men would be sitting here on the bar stools. And it would be the women doing the approaching.

"And all the confident girls would be the ones with the attention of all the boys (s.p.) and the shy girls would be sitting in the corners with a beer on their chest.(point at the lamos)

"How would you go? Would you have the courage to approach some guy who would may say "Sorry, darlin', not into to you. Best of luck next time. But how about you buy me a drink... [let her answer]

"And maybe the guys would look at things differently. Like since I would no longer have my choice of any woman(point away), but only those that approach me (point at her), I might look for the girls that all the other guys seem to be into. Like if they all like her, then she must be good, right?

"So what might I be in to?"

And then let her tell you exactly what she looks for since you have swaped situations with her.

Then you go: "Yeah, I used to know a guy who claimed he was a feminist. Like he wasn't really because he denied women their sexuality. Claimed he was completely on their side, and into feminism. I guess that he thought it was a good strategy to build rapport. He claimed that men treated women as sexual objects but they are not, they are these asexual beings. Like he used to say that all men are arse-holes and that women deserve a soft feminist guy like him. Idiot!

"I mean the way I see it is that women have all these natural thoughts ... and desires ... and fantasies. And there are these "feminist" idiots that claim they know (point away) ... but the real man (s.p.) know and see all those things that you are actually into ... and can do all those things. Like perhaps he can be gentle, but on the other hand he understands how you like a real man. Like perhaps he knows how to pull your hair [as you pull her hair]. Are you into that? Here, pull my hair: Yeah, that feels good. And he knows what you like and how to give it to you ... etc.